007

The Terminology of the Vedas

qnci European Scholars,
•
By
Pandit '"Ki.ru Datta Vidy^rthi
 THE

TERMINOLOGY OF THE YEDAS

AND

EUROPEAN SCHOLARS:
BY

PANDIT GURU DATTA VIDYARTJII, M.A.,

Professor, Physical Science, Government College, Lahore,

CHICAGO EDITION.

Printed and published under the auspices of the

Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Punjab.

Jin or t;: (j

PRINTED AT THE MXJFID-] AM TRESS.

.1893.

* - >
9 •
v
»
•>

*
4
1 i
,
»«->
1 '
• I
«. i. i 1 «-

t I. t. t
 3001

THE TERMINOLOGY OF THE VEDAS*

AND

EUROPEAN SCHOLARS.

With us, the question of the terminology of the Vedas is of the

highest importance, for upon its decision will depend the verdict to bo

m passed by the future world respecting the great controversy to rage

«> between the East and the West, concerning the supremacy of the Vedic
=
philosophy. And even now, the determination of this
question in-
z volves issues of great value. For, if the Vedic philosophy be true,
the interpretations of the Vedas, as Max
given at present by Professor
Miiller and other European scholars must not only be
regarded as
imperfect, defective and incomplete, but as altogether false. Nay, in the

light of true reason and sound scholarship, we are forced to admit their

^entire ignorance of the very rudiments of Vedic language and philosophy.

^ We are not alone in the opinion we hold. Says Schopenhauer, "I add
_
to this the impression, which the translations of Sanskrit works by
;
European scholars, with very few exceptions, produce on my mind. I
cannot resist a certain
suspicion that our Sanskrit scholars do not
understand their text much better than the higher class of school
boys
their Greek or Latin." It will be well to note here the opinion of
Swami Dayanand Saraswati, the most profound scholar of Sanskrit of
his age, on the subject. He says, " The impression that the Germans
are the best Sanskrit scholars, and that no one has read so much of

Sanskrit as Professor Max Miiller, is altogether unfounded. Yes, in a

'^sjand where lofty trees never grow, oven riciuus communis or the

* A
paper of this immo was submitted to the public by the writer early in 1888
but it was necessarily brief and incomplete. It lias now been thought advisable to
give to the same thoughts and principles a new garb, more suited to the requirements
of the reading public of the present day, to amplify the same truths by interesting
illustrations, and to supplement them by others that ar« necessary to complete the
treatment of the subject.
r
:i. >4r,4
castor-oil plant may be called an oak. The study of Sanskrit being
altogether out of question in Europe, the Germans and Professor Max
Miiller may there have come to be regarded as highest authorities....

I came to learn from a letter of a principal of some German Uni-

versity, that even men learned enough to interpret a Sanskrit letter

are rare in Germany. I have also made it

plain from the study of Max
"
Miiller's History of Sanskrit Literature" and his comments on some
mantras of the Veda, that Professor Max Miiller has been able only to
scribble out something by the help of the so-called tihas, or paraphra-

ses of the Vedas, current in India."*

It is this want of Vedic scholarship among European scholars, this

utter ignorance of Vedic language and philosophy that is the cause of

so much misimpression and prejudice even in our own country. We
are, indeed, so often authoritatively told by our fellow-brethren who
have received the highest English education, but are themselves entirely

ignorant of Sanskrit, that the Vedas are books that teach idol-worship
orelement worship, that they contain no philosophical, moral or scienti-
fic truths of any great consequence, unless they be the commonest
truisms of the kitchen. It is therefore a matter of greatest concern to

learn to attach proper value to the interpretations of these European

scholars. We propose, therefore, to present a rough outline of those

general principles, according to which Vedic terms should be inter-

preted, but which European scholars entirely ignore ; and hence much
of the misinterpretation that has grown up.

In the discussion of philosophical subjects, prc-conceived notions

are the worst enemies to encounter. They not only prejudicially bias
the mind, but also take away that truthfulness and honest integrity from

the soul, which alone are compatible with the righteous pursuit and

discernment of TRUTH. In the treatment of a question such as the

estimation of the value of system of philosophy or religion, extreme

*
Satyartha Prakasha, 3rd Edition, page 278.
 sobriety and impartiality of the mind are required. Nor is it to be
supposed that a religious or philosophical system can be at once
mastered by a mere acquaintance with grammar and language. It is

necessary that the mind should, by an adequate previous discipline, be

raised to an exalted mental condition, before the recondite and invisible
truths of Man and Nature can be comprehended by man. So is it with
Vedic philosophy. One must be a complete master of the science of

orthoepy, the science of language, the science of etymology, the science

of morals, the science of poetry, and the sciences of geology and
astronomy ;* he must be well vei*sed in the philosophy of dltarma, the
philosophy of characteristics, the doctrines of logic or the science of
evidence, the philosophy of essential existences, the philosophy of

yoga, and the philosophy of vedanta;f he must be a master of all these

and much more, before he can lay claims to a rational interpretation

of the Vedas.

Such, then, should be our Vedic scholars — thorough adepts in

science and philosophy, unprejudiced, impartial judges and seekers
after truth. But if
impartiality be supplanted
by prejudice, science
and philosophy by quasi-knowledge and superstition, and integrity

by motive, whereas predetermination takes the place of honest inquiry,

Truth is either disguised or altogether suppressed.

Speaking of the religion of the Upanishafs and the Bible, says

Schopenhauer, who has washed himself

'
clean of all early-engrafted
Jewish superstitions, and of all philosophy that cringes before these

superstitions
'
:
—
"In India, our religion (Bible) will now and never strike root;
the primitive wisdom of the human race will never be pushed aside
by the events of Galilee. J On the contrary, Indian wisdom will flow
* These are the well-known six Vedangiia :
— 1. Shiksha, 2. Vyakarana, 3. Nirukta,
4. Kalpa.5. Chhanda, and (5. Jyotisha.

t Those are the well-known six Upangas or Darshanas :— 1. Purva Mimansa,

2. Vaisheahika, 3. Nyaya, 4. Sankhya, 5. Yoga, and 6. Vcdanta.

% It is well-known how the astronomical

and geographical discoveries of Galilio
and telescope were forced upon the world in spite of the prisons and dcath-racka of
liiB

$ho so-called Christians,

 4

back upon Europe, aud produce a thorough chango in our knowing

and thinking/'
Let us now hear what Professor Max Midler has to say against
the remarks of this unprejudiced, impartial philosopher. He says:

"Hero again, the great philosopher seems to me to have allowed

himself to be carried away too far by his enthusiasm for the less known.
He is blind for the dark side of the Upanishat ; and he wilfully shuts

his eyes against the bright rays of eternal truths in the Go sp el, which
even Ram Mohan Roy was quick enough to perceive, behind the mist
and clouds of tradition that gather so quickly round the sunrise of every

religion."

With the view that the Christianity of Max Muller may be set

more we will "

forth clearly before the reader, quote from the History
of Ancient Sanskrit Literature." Says Max Muller —
" But
if India has no
place in the political history of the world,
itcertainly has a right to claim its place in the intellectual history of
mankind. The less^the Indian nation has taken part in the political
struggles of the world, and expended its energies in the exploits of
war and the formation of empire, the more it has fitted itself and
concentrated all its powers for the fulfillment of the important mission
reserved to it in the history of the East. History seems to teach that
the whole human race required a gradual education before, in the
fulness of time, it could be admitted to the truths of Christianity. All
the fallacies of human reason had to be exhausted, before the light
of a higher truth could meet with ready acceptance. The ancient
religions of the world were but the milk of nature, which was in due
time to be succeeded by the bread of life. After the primeval
physiolatry, which was common to all members of the Aryan family,
had, in the hands of a wily priesthood, been changed into an empty
idolatry, the Indian alone, of all the Aryan nations, produced a 'new
form of religion, which has well been called subjective, as opposed to the
more objective worship of nature. That religion, the religion of
Buddha, has spread far beyond the limits of the Aryan world, and to
our limited vision, it may seem to have retarded the advent of
Christianity among a large portion of the human race. But in the
sight of Him, with whom a thousand years are but as one day, that
religion, like all the ancient religions of the world, may have but
served to prepare the way of Christ, by helping through its very errors,
to strengthen and to deepen the ineradicable yearning of the human
heart after the truth of God/'*

* Max Muller's History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, pp. 31 — 32.

 Is not this Christian prejudice ? Nor is this with Mai Miiller

alone. Even more strongly does this remark hold good of Monier.

Williams, whose very object in writing the book, known as "Indian

Wisdom/' is to caricature the Vedic religion which he calls by the
name of Brahmanism, and to hoist up Christianity by the meritorious
process of deliberate contrasts. Writes Monier Williams, "It is one of
the aims, then, of the following pages to indicate the points of contact

between Christianity and the three chief false religions of the world,

asthey are thus in India." *

represented

Speaking of Christianity and its claims t

as supernaturally com-
municated by the common Father of mankind for the good of all His

creatures/ he says :
—
"
Christianity asserts that it effects its aim through nothing short
of an entire change of the whole man, and a complete renovation
of his nature. The means by which this renovation is effected may
be described as a kind of mutual transfer or substitution, leading to a
reciprocal interchange and co-operation between God and man's
nature acting upon each other. Man the Bible affirms was — —
created in the image of God, but his nature became corrupt through
a taint, derived from the fall of the first representative man and
parent of the human race, which taint could only be removed by a
vicarious death.

"Hence, the second representative man Christ whose nature — —

was divine and taintless, voluntarily underwent a sinner's death, that
the taiut of the old corrupted nature transferred to him might die also.
But this is not all. The great central truth of our religion lies
not so much the fact of Christ's death as in the fact of His
in
continued (Rom. viii. 34). The first fact is that He of His own
life.
free-will died but the second and more important fact is that He
;

rose again and lives eternally, that He may bestow life for death
and a participation in His own divine nature in place of the taint
which He has removed.

"This, then, tho reciprocal exchange which marks Christianity

is
and distinguishes from all other religions an exchange between
it —
the personal man descended from a corrupt parent, and the personal
God made man and becoming our second parent. are sepa- We
rated from a rotten root, and are grafted into a living one. We
part with the corrupt will, depraved moral sense, and perverted
judgment inherited from tho first Adam, and draw re-creativo
* Monier William's Ix-cliun
Wisdom, Introduction, p. 36.
 6

forco— renovated wills, fresh springs of wisdom, righteousness, and

—
knowledge from the ever-living divine stem of the second Adam, to
which, by a simple act of faith, we are united. In this manner is the
grand object of Christianity effected. Other religions have their
doctrines and precepts of morality, which, if carefully detached from
much that is bad and worthless, may even vie with those of Christianity.
But Christianity has, besides all these, what other religions have not —
a pei'sonal God, ever living to supply the free grace or regenerating
Spirit by which human nature is re-created and again made Godlike,
and through which man, becoming once again 'pure in heart,' and still
preserving his own will, self-consciousness, and personality, is fitted to
have access to God the Father, and dwell in His presence for ever."*

Again, speaking of Brahmanism, he says

—
" As to
Brahmanism, we must in fairness allow that according
to its more fully developed system, the aim of union with God
is held to be effected by faith in an apparently personal good,
as well as by works and by knowledge. And here some of the
lines of Brahmanical thought seem to intersect those of Christianity.
But the apparent personality of the various Hindu gods melts away,
on closer scrutiny, into a vague spiritual essence. It is true that
God becomes man and interposes for the good of men, causing a
seeming combination of the human and divine and an apparent
—
interchange of action and even loving sympathy between the
Creator and His creatures. But can there be any real interaction
or co-operation between divine and human personalities when all
personal manifestations of the Supreme Being gods as well as
—
—
men ultimately merge in the Oneness of the Infinite, and nothing
remains permanently distinct from Him ? It must be admitted
that most remarkable language is used of Krishna (Vishnu), a sup-
posed form of the Supreme, as the source of all life and energy (see
pp. 144-148, and see also pp. 456, 457)
but if identified with the
;

One God he can only, according to the Hindu theory, be the source
of life in sense of giving out life to re-absorb it into himself.
the
on the other hand, he is held to be only an incarnation or
If,
manifestation of the Supreme Being in human form, then by a
cardinal dogma of Bi'ahmanism, so far from being a channel of life,
his own life must be derived from a higher source into which it
must finally be merged, while his claim to divinity can only be due
to his possessing less of individuality as distinct from God than
inferior creatures. "t

And lastly in conclusion, he says —

"It is refreshing to turn from such unsatisfying systems, however
interspersed with wise and even sublime sentiments,
to the living

* Monier William's Indian Wisdom, Introduction,

pp. 40
— 41.
t Ibid, pp. 44 — 45.
energizing Christianity of European nations, however lamentably
fallen from its true standard, or however disgraced by the incon-
sistencies and shortcomings of nominal adherents possessors of its
—
name and form without its power."
" In
conclusion, let me note one other point which of itself stamps
our religion as the only system adapted to the requirements of the
—
whole human race the only message of salvation intended by God
to be gradually pressed upon the acceptance of all His intelligent
creatures."*

It is clear, then, that Professor Monier Williams is

labouring
under hard Christian prejudices, and cannot be viewed in any way
as an unprejudiced, impartial student of the Vedas. No wonder then,

if modern sophisticated philology, propped by the entire ignorance of

the laws of interpretations of Vedic terms, and fed by the prejudices of

Christian superstitions, should raise its head against Vedic philosophy

and gain audience among European Christian nations or deluded
educated natives of India who possess the high merit of being innocent
of any knowledge of Sanskrit language or literature.
—
But now to the subject. The first canon for the interpretation
of Vedic terms, which is laid down by Taska, the author of Nirukta,

is that the Vedic terms are all yaugika.^ The fourth section of

the first chapter of Nirukta opens with a discussion of this very

subject. Yaska, Gargya, Shakatayana and all other Grammarians and

Etymologists unanimously maintain that Vedic terms are all yaugika.

But Yaska and Shakatayana also maintain the rnrhi J terms are

also yaugi&ct) i. e., were originally framed from the roots 5 whereas,

Gargya maintains thai only rurhi terms are not yaugika. The section

concludes with a refutation of the opinions of Gargya, establishing it as

* Monier William's Indian Wisdom, Introduction, p. 46.

f A yaugika term is one that has a derivative meaning, that is, one that only
signifies the meaning of root together with tho modifications affected by
tho affixes.
In fact, the structural elements out of which the word is compounded, afford tho
whole and tho only clue to the true signification of the word. The word is purely
connotative.

J A rurhi term is the name of a definite concrete object, where the connotation
of the word (as structurally determined) gives no clue to tho objeet denoted by the
"word, ttence, ordinarily it means a word of arbitrary significance.
 8

'
true "that all terms whether Vedic or rurhi are i/augikas. It is on this

. authority of Nirukta that Patau jali quotes in his Mahabhashya the

same opinion, and distinguishes the Vedic terms from Rurhi terms by
the designation of naigamd. Says Patairjali
—

and a line before this, —

The sense of all this is, that all the Rishis and Munis, ancient

authors and commentators without exception, regard Vedic terms to

.be yaugika, whereas laukika terms are regarded by some as rurhi also.

This principle, the European scholars have entirely ignored, and

hence have flooded their interpretations of the Vedas with forged or

borrowed tales of mythology, with stories and anecdotes of historic
or pre-historic personages. Thus, according to Dr. Muii*,t the following

historical personages are mentioned in the Rig Veda, the rishis Kanvas,
in i, 47-2; Gotamas, in i, 71-16; Gritsamadas, in ii, 39-8; Bhrigavas, in

iv, 16-23 ; and Vrihaduktha, in x, 54-6. But what is the truth! The
words Kanva, and Gritsa only signify learned men in general \
(see

word Bhrigavah only signifies men of intellect

'

Nighantu iii, 13) ; the

(see Nighantu, v. 5). The word Gotama signifies one who praises;
•
and Vrihaduktha is simply one whose uJcthas, or knowledge of natural

properties of objects is vrihat or complete. It is clear, then, that if

- this principle is once ignored, one is easily landed into anecdotes of his-
torical or pre-historic personages. The game might be said of Max
Midler discovering the story of Shuv'ah-shepa in the Rig Veda. .

Shepa,
which means contact, (Nirukta iii-, 2,— (^q; j\-q^ W^fr\
^fiHlWt) being
suffixed to t^»t: or which means knowledge (*3T 1HH*. 3J^3T
s^
'ifflcti'fT^WRT ) means onewho has come into contact with knowledge,
, i. e., a learned person. It shall appear, in the progress of this article,

.
how mantra after mantra is misinterpreted by simply falsifying this law
of Nirukta.

*
Mahabhashya, Chap. Ill, Sect, iii, Aph.
:

t Muir's Sanskrit Texts, Vol. Ill, pp. 232—231.

 To an unprejudiced mind, the correctness of this law will never
be doubtful. For, independently of the authority of Nirukia, the

very antiquity of the Vedas is a clear proof of its words being yaugika.
And even Professor Max Muller, in his mythological moods, is

compelled to confess at least concerning certain positions of the Vedas,

that their words are yaugika, " But there is a charm in these
Sayslie,

primitive strains discoverable in no other class of poetry. Every word

retains something of its radical meaning every epithet tells ; every
thought, in spite of the most intricate and abrupt expressions, is, if

we once disentangle it, true, correct, and complete."*"

Further again, says Max " Names... are to be found

Muller, in the

Veda, as it were, in a still fluid state. They never appear as appellations

nor yet as proper names; they are organic, not yet broken or smoothed

down."t

Can there be anything clearer than this ? The terms occurring in

the Vedas are yaugika, because "they never appear as appellatives, nor
"
yet as proper names/' and because every word retains something of its
radical meaning." It is strange to find that the self-same Max Muller
who has perceived the yaugika character of words in some mantras
of the Vedas, should deny the same characteristic to other portions

of the Vedas. Having said that words are yaugika in these pri-

mitive strains, the Vedas, he proceeds to say, "But this is not the case

with all the poems of the Veda. It would be tedious to translate many
specimens of what I consider the poetry of the secondary age, the

Mantra period. These songs are generally intended for sacrificial pur-

poses, they are loaded with technicalities, their imagery is sometimes

mo*e brilliant, but always less perspicuous, and many thoughts and
expressions are clearly borrowed from earlier hymns. "X
This he calls

the Mantra period. The primitive strains belong to what is called the

* Max Muller's Ilistory of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, page 553.

t Ibid, p. 755.
% lbid> p. 658.
 10

Chhandas period. Ho describes the characteristics of the Chhandas

period, as distinguished from the Mantra period, that has been above
described thus :
" There is no very deep wisdom in their teaching, their
laws are simple, their poetry shows no very high flights of fancy, and

their religion might be told in a few words. But what there is of their

language, poetry and religion, has a charm which no other period of

Indian literature possesses; it is spontaneous, original aud truthful."*
Professor Max Miiller quotes Rig Veda, VII. 77, as a specimen hymn
" a
of the Chhandas period. Says he, This hymn, addressed to dawn, is

fair specimen of the original simple poetry of the Veda. It has no

reference to any special sacrifice, it contains no technical expressions,

it can hardly be called a hymn, in our sense of the word. It is

simply a
poem expressing, without any efforts, without any display of far-fetched
thought or brilliant imagery, the feelings of a man who has watched
the approach of the dawn with mingled delight and awe, and who was
moved to give utterance to what he felt in measured language." t

From these quotations it will be clear that Professor Max Miiller

regards different portions of the Vedas belonging to different periods.

There are some earlier portions, ( according to Max Miiller's highly

accurate calculations, the very exactness and infallibility of which Gold-

stucker bears ample testimony to )

which he calls as belonging to the
Chhandas period. The word Chhanda, in laukiha Sanskrit, means
spontaneity. Hence he regards Chhandas period to be the one, the
hymns of which period only teach common things, are free from the

flight of fancy, and are the spontaneous utterances of a simple (foolish)

mind. The Mantra period (2,900 years older) is full of technicalities
and descriptions of elaborate ceremonies. Now we ask what proof has
Max Miiller given to prove that the different portions of the Vedas
belong to different periods. His proofs are only two. Firstly, the ill-

conceived, confused idea of the difference between Chhandas and

* Max Muller's History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 526.

t Ibid, p. 562.
 11

Mantras and secondly, the different phases of thought represented by

;

the two portions.

We will consider each of these reasons in details.

Says Yaska
—
*rer. *t^rt w^ifa wr^tict ^t*r: ^rtct

which means that there is no difference in the meaning of mantra and

chhandas. The Veda is called the mantra, as through it one learns the
true knowledge of all existences. The Veda is also called the chhandas,

as it removes all ignorance, and brings cn3 under the protection of

true knowledge and happiness. Or, more explicitly still, we read in

Shatapatha, VIII. 2.—

The mantras {deva) are called <V//i#?ir/rt,s'foraknowledgeof all human

conduct is bound up with them. It is through them that we learn all
righteous conduct. The yaugika sense of the words will also lead

to the same conclusion. Mantra may be derived from the root man, to

think, or matri, to reveal the secret knowledge. Panini thus derives

the word chhandas \

^f^TJ^{W< II Chhandas is derived from the root

chadi to delight or illumine. Chhandas is that the knowledge of which

produces all delight or which illumines every thing, i.e., reveals its

true nature.

The second reason of Max Miiller for assigning different

different portions of the Vedas, is that there arc two

periods to
different phases of thought discoverable in the Vedas. The one is the
truthful and simple phase of thought and corresponds to his Chliandas

period. The other is the elaborate and technical phase of thought

that corresponds to his Mantra period. But what proof has Max
Miiller to show that the hymns of his secondary period are full of

* Unadi Kosha, iv. 219.

 12

elaborate and technical thought ? Evidently this, that he interprets

thorn thus. If his interpretations were proved to be wrong, his

distinction of the two periods will also fall to the ground. Now, why-
does he interpret the hymns of the mantra period thus ? Evidently,

because on the anthority of Say ana and Mahidhara, he takes the words

of those mantras to signify technicalities, sacrifices, and artificial objects

and ceremonies, or, in other words, he takes these words not in their

yaugika, but in their rurhi

sense. It is clear, then, that if Max
Midler had kept in view the canon of interpretation given in Nirukta,
that all Vedic words are yaugika, he would not have fallen into the
fallacious anachronism of assigning different periods to different parts

of the Vedas.

But there is another prejudice which is cherished by many

scholars evidently under the impression of its being a well-recognised
scientific doctrine. It is that in the ruder stages of civilization when
laws of nature are little known and but very little understood, when
mankind has not enough of the experience of the world, strict methods
of correct reasoning are very seldom observed. On the other hand,

analogy plays a most important part in the performance of intellectual

functions of man.

The slightest semblance, or visage of semblance, is

enough to

justify the exercise of analogy. The most palpable of the forces of

nature impress the human mind in such a period of rude beginnings

of human experience by motions mainly. The wind blowing, the fire

burning, a stone falling, or a fruit dropping, affects the senses

essentially as moving. Now, throughout the range of conscious

exertion of muscular power will precedes motion, and, since even tho
most grotesque experience of a savage in this world assumes this

knowledge, it is no great stretch of intellectual power to argue that

these natural forces also, to which the sensible motions are due, are
endowed with the faculty of will. The personification of the forces of
 13

nature being thus effected, their deification soon follows. The over-
whelming potency, the unobstructible might, and often the violence,
with which, in the sight of a savage, these forces operate, strike him
with terror, awe and reverence. A sense of his own weakness,

humility and inferiority creeps over the savage mind, and, what was

intellectually personified, becomes emotionally deified. According

to this view, the Vedas, undoubtedly books of primitive times, consist
of prayers from such an emotional character addressed to the forces of

nature including wind and rain — prayers breathing passions of the

savage for vengeance or for propitiation or in moments of poetic
exaltation, hymns simply portraying the simple phenomena of nature

in the personified language of mythology.

It is therefore more agreeable for these scholars to believe that

the Vedas, no doubt books of primitive times, are records of the my-

thological lore of the ancient Aryans.

And since, even according to the confessions of Max Miiller, higher

truths of philosophy and monotheism are to be found here and there
in the Vedas, it has become difficult to reconcile the mythological

interpretations of the main part of the Vedas with the philosophical

Max " I add only one more hymn [Rig. x. 121]
portions. Says Miiller,

in which the idea of one God is

expressed with such power and deci-
sion that it will make us hesitate before we deny to the Aryan nations
an instinctive monotheism. "* It is therefore argued by some that the
mythological portions are earlier than philosophical ones ;
for the

primitive faith as already indicated is always mythology.

The fundamental .error of this supposition lies in regarding a

contingent conclusion as a necessary one ;

for although mythology may
bo the result of barbarous intellect and analogical reasoning, it is not

necessarily always so. It may even grow up as a degenerate, deformed

and petrified remnant of a purer and truer religion. The history of

• Max p. 568.
Miillor's History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature,
 14

religious practices, primarily desig Qed to meet certain real wants,

degenerating, after a lapse of time, on the cessation of those wants

into mere ceremonies and customs, is an ample testimony of the truth

of the above remarks. Had the European scholars never come across
the mythological commentaries of Say ana andMahidhara, or the puranic

literature of post-vedic, (nay anti-vedic) period, it would have been

impossible forthem, from the mere grounds of comparative mythology

or Sanskrit philosophy, to alight on such interpretations of the Vedas as

are at present current among them. May it not be, that the whole

mythological fabric of the puranas, later as they are, was raised long
after the vitality of true Yedic philosophy had departed from their

words in the sight of the ignorant pedants ? Indeed, when one

considers the that
(Jpanishats inculcate that philosophical
monotheism, the parallel of which does not exist in the world a —
monotheism, that can only be conceived after a full conviction in the

uniformity of nature,
— and that they together with the philosophical

darsltanas all preceded the puranas j when one considers all this, one

can hardly resist the conclusion that, at least in India, mythology rose

as a rotten remnant of the old philosophical living religion of the

Vedas. When through the ignorance of men, the yaugika meanings of

the Vedic words were forgotten, and proper names interpreted instead,

there grew up a morbid mythology, the curse of modern idolatrous

India. That mythology may thus arise on account of the decay of the

primitive meaning of old words, even Professor Max Miiller admits,

when speaking of the degeneration of truth into mythology by a pro-

'

growth and decay

'
cess, he styles dialectic or dialectic life of religion.

He says
—
" It is well known
that ancient languages are particularly rich
m synonyms, speak more correctly, that in them the same
or, to
—
object is called by many
names is, in fact, polynymous. While in
modern languages most objects have one name only, we find in ancient
Sanskrit, in ancient Greek and Arabic, a large choice of words for the
same subject. This is perfectly natural. Each name could express
one side only of whatever had to be named, and not satisfied with one
 15

partial name, the early trainers of language produced one name after
the other, and after a time retained those which seemed most useful
for special purposes. Thus the sky might be called not only the
brilliant, but the dark, the covering, the thundering, the rain-giving.
This is the polyonomy of language, and it is what we are accustomed
to call polytheism in religion.* &c. &c. (pp. 276-277.)

Even, in the face of these European scholars are so very

facts,

reluctant to leave their pre-conceived notions that, as an example of

the same influence, Frederick Pincott writes to me from England :

" You are

right in saying that the commentators, now so
much admired, had very little, if any, better means of knowledge on
Vedic Terminology than we have at present. And you are certainly
right in treating the Puranas as very modern productions but you ;

are wrong in deducing India's mythological notions from such recent

works. The Rig Veda itself, undoubtedly the oldest book which
India possesses, abounds in mythological matter."

Do the expressions "you are certainly right," and "you are

wrong" amount to any proof of the Vedas abounding in mythology?

But further he says, "After the great shock which the spread of Bud-
dhism gave to the old Indian form of faith, the Brahmans began to
~

make their faith seriously philosophical in the Darshanas. Of course*

many bold philosophical speculations are found in the Upanishats

and even in the Sanhiias ; but it was at the time of the Darshanas

that the religion was placed on a really philosophical basis."

Nothing shows so great a disrespect towards the history of another

nation as the above. One is indeed wonder-struck at the way in which

European scholars mistrust Indian chronology, and force their hypo-
thetical guess-work and conjecture before the world as a sound histori-

cal statement of facts. Who, that has impartially studied the darskana

literature, does not know that the darshanas existed centuries before

even the first word of Buddhism Avas uttered in India ? Jaiminij

Vyasa and Patanjali had gone by, Gautama, Kanada and Kapila wero
buried in the folds of oblivion when Buddhism sprang up in the

darkness of ignorance. Even the great Shankara, who waged a

manly war against Buddhism or Jainism, preached nearly 2,200 years
* Max Muller's Lectures on the Scienco of Religion, pp. 27G-277.
 16

ago. Now this Shankara is a commentator on Vyasa Sutras, and was

preceded by Gaudapada and other Acharyas in his work. Generations

upon generations had passed away after the time of Vyasa when Shan-
kara was born. Further, there is no event so certain in Indian History

asMahabharata, which took place about 4,900 years ago. The darshanas,
therefore, existed at least 4,900 years ago. There is a strong objection

against the admission of these facts by European scholars, and that

objection is the Bible. For, if these dates be true, what will become
of the account of creation as given in the Bible ? It seems, besides, that

European scholars, on the whole, are unfit to comprehend that there

could be any disinterested literature in the past. It is easier for them

to comprehend that political or religious revolutions or controversies

should give rise to new literature through necessity. Hence the

explanations of Mr. Pincott. The old Brahmaus were superstitious,

dogmatic believers in the revelations of the Vedas. When Buddhism

spread like wild fire, they thought of shielding their religion by
mighty arguments and hence produced the darshana literature. This

assumption so charmingly connects heterogeneous events together

that although historically false, it is worth being believed in for the

sake of its ingenious explauatory power.

To return to the subject. Yaska lays down a canon for the

interpretation of Vedic terms.

It is that the Yedic terms are yaugika.

Mahabhashya repeats the same. We have seen how this law is set
aside and ignored by the European scholars in the interpretations of

the Vedas, whence have arisen serious mistakes in their translations of

the Vedas. We have also seen how Dr. Muir falling in the same

mistake interprets general terms as proper nouns; and how Max

into two
Miiller also led by the same error, wrongly divides the Vedas
parts ; the Ckhandas and Mantras. We have also seen how due to

the ignorance of the same law, Mantras upon Mantras have been

in meaning, whereas some few Mantras

interpreted as mythological
could only be interpreted philosophically, thus giving rise to the
 17

question of reconciling philosophy with mythology. To further

illustrate the importance of the proposition, that all Vedic terms are

yaugika, I herewith subjoin the true translation of the 4th Mantra

of the 50th Sukta of Rig Veda with my comments thereon and the

translation of the same by Monier Williams for comparison. Surya,

as a yaugika word, means both the sun and the Divinity. Monier
Williams takes it to represent the sun only. Other terms will become
explicit in the course of exposition. The Mantra runs as follows :
—
fnfTsjf§ss^sr?ft ssftf^ff^fa ^Sj fa*sWT vrr1% ft^f n
i

The subject is the gorgeous wonders of the solar and the electric

worlds. " A grand problem is here propounded in this illfm/r^. Whoishere

that is not struck with the multiplicity of objects and appearances ? Who
that has not lost thought itself in contemplation of the infinite varieties

that inhabit even our own planet ? Even the varieties of plant life

have not yet been counted. The number of animal and plant species

together with the vast number of mineral compounds may truly be

called infinite." But why confine ourselves to this earth alone. Who
has counted the host of heavens and the infinity of stars, the innu-

merable number of worlds yet made, and still

remaining to be made?
What mortal eye can measure and scan the depths of space ? Light
travels at the rate of 180,000 miles per second. There ai*e stars

from which rays of light have started on their journey ever since the

day of creation, hundreds of years ago, the rays have sped on and on
with the unearthly velocity of 180,000 miles per second through

space, and have only now penetrated into the atmosphere of our
earth. Imagine the infinite depth of space with which we are on all

sides surrounded. Are we not struck with variety and diversity in

every direction? fs not differentiation the universal formula ? Whence

have these manifold and different objects of the universe proceeded ?

How is it that the same Universal-Father-spirit permeating m all

and acting on all produced these heterogeneous items of the uni-

verse ? Where lies the causo of difference ? A difference so

striking and at once so beautiful ? How can the same God acting
 18

upon the universe produce an earth here and a sun there, a planet
here and a satellite there, an ocean here and a dry land there, nay,

a Swami here and an idiot there ? The answer to this question

is impressed in the very solar constitution. Scientific philosophers

assure us that colour is not an intrinsic property of matter as popular

belief would have it. But it is an accident of matter. A red

object appears red not because it is

essentially so, but because of an
extraneous cause. Red and violet would appear equally black when

placed in the dark. It is the magic of sunbeams which imparts to

them this special influence, this chromatic beauty, this congenial colora-

tion. In a lonely forest mid gloom and wilderness, a weary traveller

who had betaken himself to the alluring shadow of a pompous tree,

lay down to rest and there sunk in deep slumber. He awoke and found
himself enveloped in gloom and dismal darkness on all sides. No earthly
object was visible on either side. A thick black firmament on high, so

beclouded as to inspire with the conviction that the sun had never

shone there, a heavy gloom on the right, a gloom on the left, a gloom

before and a gloom behind. Thus laboured the traveller under the

ghastly, frightful windspell of frozen darkness. Immediately the

heat-carrying rays of the sun struck upon the massive cloud, and, as
if by a magic touch, the frozen gloom began to melt, a heavy shower
of rain fell down. It cleared the atmosphere of suspended dust

particles ; and, in a twinkling of the eye, fled the moisture-laden

sheet of darkness resigning its realm to awakened vision entire. The

traveller turned his eyes in ecstatic wonder from one direction to the

other, and beheld a dirty gutter flowing thei^e, a crystalline pond

reposing here, a green grass meadow more beautiful than violet plant

on one side, and a cluster of variegated fragrant flowers on the other.

The feathery creation withpeacock's train, and deer's slender legs, and

chirrup of bh'ds with plumage lent from Heaven, all, in fact, all darted

into vision. Was there naught before the sunhad shone? Had verdant
forest, rich with luxuriant vegetation, and filled with the music of
 19

birds all grown in a moment ? Where lay the crystalline waters?

"Where the blue canopy, where the fragrant flower? Had they been
transported there by some magical power in a twinkling of the eye
from dark dim distant region of chaos? No, they did not spring up
in a moment. They were already there. But the sunbeams had not
shed their lustre on them. It required the magic of the lustrous sun

to shine, before scenes of exquisite beauty could dart into vision. It

required the luminous rays of the resplendent orb to shed their

influence before the eyes could roll in the beautiful, charming,
harmonious, reposeful and refreshing scenes of fragrant green. Yes,

thus, even thus, is this sublimely attractive Universe, Tfa*T f^i"3 ^ ,

illuminated by a sun ^EJ^TWTfa, the Sun that knows no setting, the

Sun that caused our planets and the solar orb to appear Wtm^i <£,

the Sun that evolves the panorama of this grand creation, f^S^SJrT,

the eternal Sun ever existing through eternity in perpetual action for
the good of all. lie sheds the rays of His wisdom all around; the

deeply thirsty, and parching, blast-dried atoms of matter drank in, to

satiation, from the ever-flowing, ever -gushing, ever-illuminating rays

of Divine wisdom, their appropriate elements and essences of

phenomenal existence and panoramic display. Thus is this universe

sustained. One central sun producing infinity of colours. One central

Divinity, producing infinity of worlds and objects. Compare with

this Monier William's translation :
—
" With
speed beyond the ken of mortals, thou, sun,

Dost ever travel on, conspicuous to all.

Thou dost create the light, and with it illume

'
The entire universe.'

We have shown why we regard Chhandas and Mantra as synony-

mous. We have also seen how Max Miiller distinguishes between

Chhandas and Mantra, regarding the latter as belonging to the secon-

dary age, as loaded with technicalities, and as being less perspicuous

*'
than the former. He points out its chief character to be that these
 20

songs are generally intended for sacrificial purposes." Concerning

this Mantra period, he says, "One specimen may suffice, a hymn
describing the sacrifice of the horse with the full detail of a super-
stitions ceremonial. (Rig Veda, i.
162)."

We shall therefore quote the 162nd Sukta of Rigveda, as it is

the specimen hymn of Max Miiller, with his translation, and show

how, due to a defective knowledge of Vedic literature and to the

rejection of the principle that Vedic terms are all yangiha, Professor
Max Miiller translates a purely scientific hymn, distinguishable in no
characteristics from the chTiandas of the Vedas, as representative of

an artificial, cumbersome and highly superstitious ritual or ceremonial.

To our thinking, Muller's interpretation is so very incongruous*

unintelligible, and superficial, that were the iDterpretation even re-

garded as possible, it could never be conceived as the description of

an actual ceremonial. And now to the hymn. The first mantra runs

thus :
—
TTT^Tt fa^t 3^ ^JUgft^ ^^T TT^rT: nfos** I

"
Max Miiller translates it, May Mitra, Varuna, Aryaman, Ayu,

Indra, the lord of the Ribhus, and the Maruts not rebuke us, because
we shall proclaim at the sacrifice the virtues of the swift horse sprung
from the gods."

That the above interpretation may be regarded as real or as true,

let Professor Max Miiller prove that Aryans of the Vedic times enter-
tained the superstition that at least one swift horse had sprung from

the gods, also that the gods Mitra, Varuna, Aryaman, Ayu, Indra,

the lord of Ribhus and the Maruts, did not like to hear the virtues of

the swift horse proclaimed at the sacrifice, for, if otherwise, they would
have no reason to rebuke the poet. Not one of these positions it is

ever possible to entertain with validity. Even the most diseased con-
ception of a savage shrinks from such a superstition as the "swift
 21

horse sprung from the gods." It is also in vain to refer for the veri*

fication of this position to the ashicamedha of the so-called Puranas.

The whole truth is that this mythology of ashwamedha arose in the

same way in which originates Max Miiller's translation. It originates

from an ignorance of the dialectic laws of the Vedas, when words

having a yaugiha sense are taken for proper nouns, and an imaginary
mythology started.

To take, for instance, the mantra quoted above. Max M tiller is

'
evidently under the impression that Mitra is the god of the day/
Varuna is the god of the '
investing sky/ Vayu or Ayu is the 'god of
' '
the wind/ Indra the god of the watery atmosphere/ Eibhus, the
f
and Maruts are the storm-gods.' But why these gods?
celestial artists/

Because he ignores the yaugika sense of these words and takes them as

propor nouns. Literally speaking, mitra means a friend ; varuna, a

man of noble qualities; aryama } a judge or an administrator of justice;

ayu, a learned man; indra, a governor; ribhuhsha, a wise man;

marutahs, those who practically observe the laws of seasons. The word
ashwa which occurs in the mantra does not mean '
horse' only, but it

also —
means the group of three forces heat, electrictity and magnetism.
It, in fact, means anything that can carry soon through a distance.

Hence writes Swami Dayanand in the beginning of this Sukta :—

" This Sukta an exposition of ashwa vidya which means the

is

science of training horses and the science of heat which pervades

That 'ashwa' means heat>
everywhere in the shape of electricity."

will bo clear from the following quotations :

—
^m s{ ccTT *FCTO^ f^TT ^W "snftfvr. Il Rig Veda.

The words ashivam agnim show that ashwa means agni or Heat.

And further —

(Rv. i. 27. I.)

 22

which means Agni, the a$hwa carries like an animal of conveyance

: f

the learned who thus recognize its distance-carrying properties. Or

further —

Shatapatha Br. I. iii. 3.29-30.

The above quotations are deemed sufficient to show both meanings

of ashwa above indicated.

Professor Max Miiller translates the "devajafa" of the mantra as

"sprung from the gods." This is again wrong, for he again takes
deva in its popular {laukika) sense, god; whereas devajafa means "with
brilliant qualities manifested, or evoked to work by learned men :"

the word deva meaning both brilliant qualities and learned men. Again
Max Miiller translates "virya" merely into virtues, instead of "power-
generating virtues." The true meaning of the mantra, therefore, is —
" We will describe the power-generating virtues of the energetic
horses endowed with brilliant properties, or the virtues of the vigorous

force of heat which learned or scientific men can evoke to work for

purposes of appliances (not sacrifice). Let not philanthropes, noble

men, judges, learned men, rulers, wise men and practical mechanics

ever disregard these properties*" With this compare Max Miiller' s

translation —
"
May Mitra, Varuna, Aryaman, Ayu, lndra, the lord of Kibhus,

and the Maruts not rebuke us, because we shall proclaim at the sacri-

fice the virtues of the swift horse sprung from the gods."

We come now to the second mantra which runs thus :—•

^rfaftfsnwirerT irr§crsr ?nrf?f wtai qwfft *rafar i

Max Miiller translates it thus —

" When
they lead before the horse, which is decked with pure gold
 23

ornaments, the offering, firmly grasped, the spotted goat bleats

while walking onwards ;
it goes the path beloved by Indra and
Pushan."

Here again there is no sense in the passage. The bleating of the

goat has no connection with the leading of the offering before the horse,
nor any with its walking onward. Nor is the path of Indra and Pushan

in any way defined. In fact, it is very clear that there is no definite

specific relation between the first mantra and this according to Miiller's

translation, unless a far-fetched connection be forced by the imagination

bent to discover or invent some curious inconceivable mythology. And
now to the application of the principle that all Yedic terms a,reyaugika >
Max Miiller translates reknasas into gold ornaments, whereas it only
means wealth (see Nighantu, ii. 10). Rati which signifies the mere act
'

vishvarupa, which only

'
of giving is converted into an offering; means
one 'having anidea of all forms,' is converted into 'spotted'; aja which

means '
a man once born in wisdom, being never born again' is

memyat, from root mi to injure,

' '
converted into a goat ;
is given to

mean 'bleating' ; sujjrdng, which means, from root prachh to question,

'
'
one who is able enough to put questions elegantly ; is translated as

'walking onward' ; pathah, which only means drink or food, is trans-

lated into 'path' ;

and lastly, indra andpushan, instead of meaning the

governing p3ople and the strong'are again made to signify two deities
with their proper names 'Indra' and 'Pushan.' Concerning the word

patha, writes Yaska, vi. 7 —

'
Muk/iato nai/anti, which means, they bring out of the organ of

speech, or they explain or preach,'

is translated by Max Miiller into
'
they lead before.'
It is thus clear that, in the one mantra alone, there are nine

words that have been wrongly translated by Max Miiller, and all is
 24

due to this that the yaugika sense of the words has been ignored, the
rurhi or the laukika sense being every where forced in the translation.

The translation of the mantra, according to the sense of the words we

have given, will be —
"
They who preach that only wealth earned by righteous means
should be appropriated and spent, and those born in wisdom, who are

well versed in questioning others elegantly, in the science of form, and

in correcting the unwise, these and such alone drink the potion of

strength and of power to govern."

The connection of this mantra with the foregoing is that the

asluva vidya, spoken of in the first mantra, should be practiced only

by those who are possessed of righteous means, are wise, and have the

capacity to govern and control.

We come now to the 3rd mantra of 162nd Sukta.

-*m wftt: g€t *%*i ^mf^r^T ^^ vrnft ^%th fa*$n^: i

Max Miiller translates it thus —

" This with the quick
goat, destined for all the gods, is led first

horse, as Pushan's share ;

for Tvashtri himself raises to glory this

pleasant offering which is brought with the horse."

Here, again, we find the same artificial stretch of imagination
which is the characteristic of this translation. How can the goat be

'destined for all the gods/ and at the same time be 'Pushan's share'

alone ? Here Max Miiller gives a reason for the goat being led first

as Pushan's share; the reason is that 'Tvashtri himself raises to glory

this pleasant offering.' Now who is this Tvashtri, and how is he

related to Pushan ? How does Tvashtri himself raise to glory this

pleasant offering ? All these are questions left to be answered by

the blank imagination of the reader. Such a translation can only do
one service. It is that of making fools of the Vedic rishis whom Max
Muller supposes to be the authors of the Vedas,
 OK

The word vishwadevyas, which. Max Muller translates as 'destined

for all the gods/ can never grammatically mean so. The utmost that
one can make for Max Mailer on this word is that vishwadevyas should

mean '
for all the devas/ but 'destined' is a pure addition unwarranted

by grammar. Vishwadevya is formed from vishwadeva by the addi-

tion of the suffixy«£ in the sense of tatra sadhu, (see Ashtadhyayi, IV.

4, 98). The meaning is —

or Vishwadevyas is whatsoever is par excellence fit to produce useful

We
'

properties. have spoken of Max Muller translating pushan, which

means strength, into a proper noun. Tvashtri, which simply means
one who befits things, or a skilful hand, is again converted into a proper
noun. Purodasha, which means food well-cooked, is translated into

offering. The words which is brought with' are of course Max

'
Miiller's

addition to put sense into what would otherwise be without any sense.

Arvat, which, no doubt, sometimes means a horse, here means knowledge.

For, if horse were intended, some adjective of significance would have

bo changed the meaning. Saushravasaya Jinvatiwhieh means ''obtains

for purpose of a good food," (Shravas, in Yedic Sanskrit, meaning
food or anna) is translated by Max Muller into '
raises to glory.'
The true meaning would be — "The goat possessed of useful properties
yields milk as a strengthening food for horses. The beat cereal is

useful when made into pleasant food well prepared by an apt cook
according to the modes dictated by specific knowledge of the pro-
perties of foods."

We have criticised Max Miiller's translation of the first three

mantras of this sukta in detail, to show how he errs at every step ;
in

every case, the error consisting in taking the ruhri meaning instead
of the yaugika one of the word. It will not be difficult to pass from
mantra to mantra till the hymn is finished, and show that the true

origin of all errors lies in not recognising the yauyilca sense of Vedio
 26

terms. But wo deem the above three mantras as sufficient. We,

however, subjoin herewith Max Mulleins translation of the remaining

mantras of this hymn, with our occasional remarks in the foot-notes.

Max Midler's Translation :

—
4. When thrice at the proper seasons, men lead around the

sacrificial horse which goes to the gods, Pushan's share comes first,

the goat, which announces the sacrifice* to the gods.

5. Hotri, Adhvaryu, Avayo, (Pratiprasthatri), Agnimindha

(agnidhra), Gravagrabha (Grasvatut), and the wise Sanstri (Prasas-

tri), may you fill the streams (round the altar) with a sacrifice which

is well-prepared and well-acomplished.t

G. They who cut the sacrificial post, and they who carry it, they
who make the ring for the post of the horse, and even they who bring
together what is cooked for the horse, may their work be with us.

7. He came on — (my prayer has been well performed), the

bright backed horse goes to the region of the gods. Wise poets
celebrate him, and we have won a good friend for the love of the gods.

8. The halter of the swift one, the heel- ropes of the horse, the

head-ropes, the girths, the bridle, and even the grass that has been put
into his mouth, may all these which belong to thee be with the gods.

9. What the fly eats of the flesh, what adheres to the stick, or to

the axe, or to the hands of the immolator and his nails, may all these

which belong to thee be with the gods 4

* The word
yajna which originally indicates any action requiring association of
men or objects, and productive of beneficial results, is always translated
by European
scholars as sacrifice. The notion of sacrifice is a purely Christian notion, and has no
place in Vcdic philosophy. It is foreign to the genuine religion of India. Hence all
translations in which the word sacrifice occurs are to be rejected as fallacious.

t Max Midler herein puts five words as proper nouns, and therefore does not
accept their yaugika sense. The words round the altar' are supplied by Muller's
'

imagination on the ground that sacrifices are conducted at the altar. Both ideas are
foreign to Vedic philosophy.

X Here Max Midler does not understand the structure of the sentence. The
original words are ashvasya kravisho which he takes to mean the flesh of the horse,
birl kra visho is an adjective
qualifying ashvasya, the whole really means, 'of the pac-
ing horse.' Kravisho does not mean of the flesh' but 'pacing' from the root hram,
'

to pace. The meaning would be, '' What the fly eats of whatever dirty adheres to the
horse," &c. Again the words swarau and swadhitau are translated into stick and axe,
which is never their meaning.
 27

10. The ordure that runs from the belly, and the smaller

particles of raw flesh, may the immolators well prepare all this, and
dress the sacrifice till it is well-cooked.*

11. Tho juice that flows from thy roasted limb on the spit after
thou hast been killed,may it not run on the earth, or the grass; may
it be given to the gods who desire it. t
12. They who examine the horse when it is roasted, they who
say "it smells well, take it away/' they who serve the distribution of
the meat, may their work also be with us.J

13. The ladle of the spot where the meat is cooked, and the
vessels for sprinkling the juice, the vessels to keep off the heat, the

covers of the vessels, the skewers, and the knives, they adorn the horse.

14. Where he walks, where he sits, where he stirs, the foot-

fastening of the horse, what he drinks, and what food he eats, may all

these which belong to thee, be with the god !

15. May not the fire with smoky smell make thee hiss, may not

the glowing cauldron swell and burst. The gods accept the horse if it

is offered to them in due form.

16. The cover which they stretch over the horse, and the golden

ornaments, the head-ropes of the horse, and the foot-ropes, all these

which are dear to the gods, they offer to them.

17. If some one strike these with the heel or the whip that thou
mayst lie down, and thou art snorting with all thy might, then I

purify all this with my prayer, as with a spoon of clarified butter at

the sacrifice.

to como
kravisho, which means raw food yet undigested and disposed
* '

Amaaya
out' similarly translated by Miiller into raw flesh here.
is Ami is the state of the
undigested food in tho belly. Here again Miiller docs not follow tho structure of the
mantra.

t Agnina pachyamanad, which means forced by the heat of anger,' is translated by

'

Miiller as roasted and hatasya, which means propelled, is here translated by Miiller
;

as " killed:'

% The translation of this mantra is especially noteworthy.

The word wajinarH
from waja, cereals, is here taken as meaning horse, and Professor Max Miiller is so
anxious to bring forth the sense of the sacrifice of the horse that, not, content with this*
be interprets mantn bhiksham apaste, which means 'he serves the absence of meat*
'
into he serves the meat.' Can there be anything more questionable.
 28

18. The axe approaches the 34 ribs of the quick horse, beloved

find out each joint

of gods. Do you wisely keep the limbs whole,
and strike.'
9*'

19. One strikes the brilliant horse, two hold it, thus is the

custom. Those of thy limbs which I have seasonably prepared, I

sacrifice in the fire as balls offered to the gods.t

20. May not thy dear soul burn thee, while thou art coming

near, may the axe not stick to thy body. May no greedy and unskilful

iinmolator, missing with the sword, throw thy mangled limbs together,
21. Indeed thou diest not thus, thou sufferest not; thou goestto

the gods on easy path.

The two horses of Indra, the two deer of the Maruts have been

yoked, and the horse come to the shaft of the ass (of the aswins) J
22. May this horse give us cattle and horses, men, progeny and

all sustaining wealth. May Aditi keep us from sin, may the horse of

this sacrifice — —
give us strength." pp. 553 554.

We leave now Max Midler and his interpretations, and come to

another commentator of the Vedas, Sayana. Sayana may truly be

called the father of
European Veclic scholarship. Sayana is the author
from whose voluminous commentaries the Eui*opeans have drunk in
the deep wells of mythology. It is upon the interpretation of Madhava
Sayana that the translations of Wilson, Benfey andLlanglois are based.

It Sayana whose commentaries are appealed to in all doubtful

is
cases,
"If a dwarf on the shoulders of a giant can see further than the giant,
he is no less a dwarf in comparison with the giant." If modern exegetes
and lexicographers standing at the top of Sayana, i.e., with their main

* The number of ribs mentioned by Miiller is worth being counted and verified.
Yarikri which means a zigzag motion is here translated as rib.' This requires proof.
' ' '

j Twashtu rashvasya '

here translated as brilliant horse,' as if ashva were the noun
is
and tvashtn its-qualifying adjective. The reverse is the truth. Tivastha is the noun
signifying electricity, and ashva is the qualifying adjective signifying all -pervading.
The words, "offered to the gods," in the end of the translation are pure addition of
Max Miiller. to give the whole a mythological coloring.
% Hari is again as a rurhi word translated into two horses of Indra and xjrishati
into two d.cr of maruts. The Shaft of the ass is perhaps the greatest
curiosity, Max
' '

Miiller could present, as a sign of

mythology.
 29

knowledge of tlie Vedas borrowed from Saj^ana, should now exclaim,

" of the Vedas which was current in
Sayana intimates only that sense
India some centuries ago, but comparative philology gives us that

meaning which the poets themselves gave to their songs and phrases" ;

or if they should exclaim that they have the great advantage of putting

together ten or twenty passages for examining the sense of a word

whichoccursin them, which Sayana had not nothing is to be wondered :

at. Madhava Sayana, the voluminous commentator of all the Vedas,

of the most important Brahmanas and a Kalpa work, the I'enowned Mi-

mansist,
— he, the great grammarian, who wrote the learned comment-
ary on Sarskrit radicals :
yes, he is still a model of learning and a
colossal giant of memory, in comparison to our modern philologists and

scholars. Let modern scholars, therefore, always bear in mind, that

Sayana is the life of their scholarship, their comparative philology, and

their so much boasted interpretation of the Vedas. And if Sayana was

himself diseased —whatsoever the value of the efforts of modern scholars

—their comparative philology, their new interpretations, and their so-

called marvellous achievements cannot but be diseased. Doubt not that

the vitality of modern comparative philology and Vedic scholashipis

wholly derived from the diseased and defective victuals of Sayana' s

learning. Sooner or later, the disease will develop its final symptom
and sap the foundation of the very vitality it seemed to produce. No
branch of a tree can live or flourish when separated from the living

stock. No interpretations of the Vedas will, in the end, ever succeed

unless they are in accord with the living sense of the Vedas in the

Nirukta and the Brahmanas.

I quote here a mantra from Rigveda,

and will show how Sayana's

interpretation radically
differs from the exposition of Nirukta. The
mantra is from Rigveda ix. 96. It runs thus :
—

t£3\ ?z*n?rT ^f^frri^T^t *fm: qfaa «<iifa t»^ ii

 30

Says Sayana :
—
"God himself appears as Brahma among the gods,Indra, Agni, &e;
He appears as a poet among the dramatists and writers of lyrics; He
appears as Yashishtha, &c. among the Brahmanas He appears as a ;

buffalo among quadrupeds He appears as an eagle among birds ;

;

He appears as an axe in the forest; He appears as the soma-juice

purified by mantras excelling in its power of purification, the sacred
waters of the Ganges, &c, &c."

The translation bears the stamp of the time when it was produced.
It is the effort of name by appealing to
a Pandit to establish his

popular prejudice and feeling. Evidently when Sayana wrote, the

religion of Tndia was "pantheism" or everything is God evidently ;

superstition had so far increased that the waters of the Ganges were
regarded as sacred ;
incarnations were believed in ;
the worship of

Brah ma, Vasishtha and other rishis was at its acme. It was probably
the age of the dramatists and poets. Sayana was himself a resident of

some city or town. He was not a villager. He was familiar with the

axe as an instrument of the destruction of forests, &c, but not with

the lightning or fire as a similar but more powerful agent. His
translation does not mirror the sense of the Vedas but his own age.
His interprepation of bra/ima, kavi, deva rishi, vipra, mahisha, mriga,

shyena, gridhra, vana scw/a,

—
pavitra of all these words, without one

exception, is purely rurhi or laukika.

Now follows the exposition of Yaska in his Nirukta, xiv, 13. There
is not a single word that is not taken in its yaugika sense. Saya
Yaska :
—
^snwTa?' wnT^rT?nfTTosi*ralTr w®\ irefo ^m ^r^wt-

1SFTTfafrT33i> ^T^TT H^fo MTCT^ ^PT ^WWt T^TW\f%2nfar

 31

We will now speak of the spiritual sense of the mantra as Yaska

gives it. It is his object to explain that the human spirit is the central
conscious being that enjoys all experience. The external world as
revealed by the senses finds its purpose and object and therefore
absorption in this central being. The indriyas or the senses are called
the devos, because they have their play in the external
phenomenal
world, and because it is by them that the external world is revealed to
us. Hence Alma, the human spirit, is the bra/nna devanam, the
conscious entity that presents to its consciousness all that the senses

reveal. Similarly, the senses are called the kavnyah, because one learns

by their means. The A'tuna, then, is padavi ha cin am or the true sentient

being that understands the working of the senses. Further, the At ma

is nshir vipranam, the cognizors of sensations ; vipra meaning the
senses as the feelings excited by them pervade the whole body. The
senses are also called the mrigax, for they hunt about their proper

aliment in the external world. A/ma is mahisho mriganam, i.e., the

great of all the hunters. The meaning is that it is really through the
power of Atma that the senses are enabled to find out their proper

objects. The Atma is called shyena, as to it belongs the power of

realization ;
and gridhras are the indriyas, for they provide the material

for such realization. The Atma, then, pervades these senses. Further,
this Atma is stvadhitir vananam, or the master whom all indriyas

serve. Swadhiti means Atma, for the activity of Atma is all for itself,

man being an end unto himself. The senses are called vana, for they

serve their master, the human spirit. It is this Atma that being pure
in its nature enjoys all. Such, then, is the yangika sense which Yaska
attaches to the mantra. Not only is it all consistent and intelligible

unlike Sayana's which conveys no actual sense ;

not only is each word

clearly defined in its yaugiika meaning, in contradistinction with Sayana

who knows no other sense of the word than the popular one; but there
is also to be found that simplicity, naturalness and truthfulness of

meaning, rendering it independent of all time and space, which*

 32

contrasted with the artificiality, burdens'omeness and localisation of

Sayana's sense, can only proclaim Sayana's complete ignorance of the

principles of Vedic interpretation.

It is this Say an a, upon whose commentaries of the Vedas are based
the translations of European scholars.

We leave now Max and Sayana with their rurhi transla-

Miiller

tions and come to another question, which though remotely connected

with the one just mentioned, is yet important enough to be separately

treated. It is the question concerning the Religion of the Vedas.

European scholars and idolatrous superstitious Hindus are of opinion

that the Vedas inculcate the worship of innumerable gods and goddesses,

Devatas. This word, devata, is a most fruitful source of error, and it is

exact meaning and application should

very necessary that its be

determined. Not understanding the Vedic sense of this word, devata

and easily admitting the popular superstitious interpretation of a belief

in mythological godsand goddesses, crumbling into wretched idolatry,

European scholars have imagined the Vedas to be full of the worship of

such materials, and have gone so far in their reverence for the Vedas

as to degrade its religion even below polytheism and perhaps at par

with atheism. In their fit of benevolence, the European scholars

have been gracious enough to endow this religion with a title, a name
and that is Henotheism.
After classifying religions into pol atheistic, dualistic and monothe-

istic, remarks Max Miiller, "It would certainly be necessary to add two-
other classes —the henotheistic and the atheistic. Henotheistic religions
differ from polytheistic, because, although they recoguize the existence
of various deities, or names of deities, they represent each deity as-

independent of all the rest, as the only deity present in the mind of the
at the time of his
worshipper worship and prayer. This character is
very prominent in the religion of the Vedic poets.
Although many gods
are invoked in different hymns, sometimes also in the same
hymn, yet
there is no rule of precedence established
among them ; and, accoidin
 33

to the varying aspects of nature, and the varying- cravings of human

heart, it is sometimes Indra, the god of the blue sky, sometimes A gni,
the god of fire, sometimes Varuna, the ancient god of the firmament,
who are praised as supreme without any suspicion of rivalry, or any
idea of subordination. This peculiar phase of religion, this worship of

single gods forms probably everywhere the first stage in the growth of
polytheism, and deserves therefore a separate name."*

To further illustrate the principles of this new religion, henotheism,

says Max Miiller, "When these individual gods are invoked, they are

not conceived as limited by the power of others as superior or inferior

in rank. Each god is to the mind of the supplicant as good as all the

gods. He is felt, at the time, as a real divinity, as supreme and absolute,

in spite of the necessary limitation which, to our mind, a plurality of

gods must entail on every single god. All the rest disappear for a
moment from the vision of the poet, and he only who is to fulfil their

desires stands in full light before theeyesof the worshippers. 'Among

you, gods, there is none that is small, none that is young you are
•
all

great indeed,' is a sentiment which, though perhaps, not so distinctly

expressed as by Manu Vaivasvata, nevertheless, underlies all the

poetry of the Veda. Although the gods are sometimes distinctly

invoked as the great and the small, the young and the old (Rv. i, 27-13),

this is only an attempt to find out the most comprehensive expression

for the divine powers, and nowhere is any of the gods represented as
the slave of others."

As an illustration, "when Agni, the lord of fire, is addressed by the

of as the first god, not inferior even to Indra. While

poet, he is spoken
is invoked, Indra is forgotten; there is no competition between
Agni
the two, nor any rivalry between them and other gods. This is a most

important feature in the religion of the Veda,

and has never been taken

into consideration by those who have written on the history of ancient

polytheism, "t
* Max Miiller : Lectures cm the Science of Religion, London, 1873, pp. 1-41-142.
t Max Miiller :
History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, pp. 552-553.
 34

We have seen what Max Midler's view of the Religion of the Vedas
is. We may be sure that the review of other European scholars also
cannot be otherwise. Is henotheism really, then, the religion of the

Vedas ? Is the worship of devatas an essential feature of Vedic worship ?

Are we to believe Max Miillei*, and assert that the nation to which he
hesitates to deny instinctive monotheism has uprooted itsso far

instincts as to fall down to an acquired belief in henotheism ? * No, not

so. Vedas, the sacred books of the primitive Aryans, are the purest
record of the highest form of monotheism possible to conceive. Scholars

canuot long continue to misconstrue the Vedas, and ignore the laws of
their interpretation. Says Yaska:
—

ug^af ?rt^ff: *r *r*tft vr^rfcr n— Nirukta, vii, l.

Devata is a general term applied to those substances whose

attributes are explained in a mantra. The sense of the above is that

when it is known which substance it is that forms the subject of

exposition in the mantra, the term signifying that substance is called

the devata of the mantra. Take, for instance, the mantra,

^fn( ^ gtTcre ^ ^rer^^i ii ^rt ii * ii

^rTOT^nrf^w 11

"I present to your consideration agni which is the fruitful source

of worldly enjoyments, which is capable of working as though it were

a messenger, and isendowed with the property of preparing all our
foods. Hear ye, and do the same."
Since it is agni that forms the subject-matter of this mantra, agni
would be called the devata of this mantra. Hence, says Yaska, a
mantra is of that devata, with the object of expressing whose

properties, God, the Omniscient, revealed the mantra.

"We find an analogous sense of the word devata in another
part of
Nirukta. Says Yaska —
Mux Mullor :
History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, 546.
p.
 35

*
3pfr *prerf%*Nfl" ^ II Nirukta, i. 2.

Whenever the process of an art is described, the mantra that

completely describes that process is called the devata (or the index) of

that process.'

It is in this sense that the devata of a mantra is the index, the

essential key-note of the meaning of the mantra. There is in this

analysis of the word no reference to any gods or goddesses, no

mythology, no element worship, no henotheism. If this plain and

simple meaning of devata were understood, no more will the mantras,

having marut for their devata or agni for their devata, be regarded as

hymns addressed to the storm-god or the god of fire ;

but it will be

perceived that these mantras treat respectively of the properties oi marut

and of the properties of fire. It will then be regarded, as said else-
where in Nirukta —
%€t ^RT^T ^RTST ^EHrRT^T ^T WT^t vrWrftfcT 3T ||

Nirukta, vii. 15.

that whatsoever or whosoever is capable of conferring some advan-

tage upon us, capable of illuminating things, or capable of

explaining them to us, and lastly, the Light of all lights, these are the

fit
objects to be called devatas. This is not in any way inconsistent

with what has gone before. For, the devata of a mantra, being the

key-note of the sense of the mantra, is a word capable of rendering an

explanation of the mantra, and hence is called the devata of that

mantra. Speaking of these devatas, Yaska writes something which even

goes to show that people of his time had not even the slightest notion of
the gods and goddesses of Max MiUler and superstitious Hindus — gods,
and goddesses that are nowforced upon us under the Vedic designation,
davata. Says he —
^% HT^Tft^I^W ^% ^^wfrTfa^c^' fas^ri II

Nirukta, vii. 4.

'
We often find in common practice of the world at large, that

learned men, parents, and atithis, (or those guest-missionaries who

 36

have no fixed residence, but wander about from place to place benefiting
the world by their religious instructions), are regarded as devatas or

called by the names of devatas.' It is clear from the above quotation,

that religious teachers, parents and learned men, these alone, or the like,

were called devatas and no others, in Yaska's time. Had Yaska known
of any such idolatry or henotheisin or devata worship which supersti-
tious Hindus are so fond of, and which Professor Max Miiller is so

intent to find in the Vedas, or had any such worship prevailed in his

time, even though he himself did not share in this worship, it is

impossible that lie should not have made any mention of it at all,
especially when speaking of the common practice among men in
general. There can be no doubt that element worship, or nature

worship, is not only foreign to the Vedas and the ages of Yaska and

Panini and Vedic rishis and munis, but that idolatry and its parent

mythology, at least in so far as Aryavartais concerned, are the pi'oducts

of recent times.

To return to the subject. We have seen that Yaska regards the

names of those substances whose properties are treated of in the mantra

as the devatas. What substances, then, are the devatas ? They are all
that can form the subject of human knowledge. All human knowledge
is limited by two conditions, i.e., time and sjiace. Our knowledge of
causation is mainly that of succession of events. And succession is

nothing but an order in time. Secondly, our knowledge must be

a knowledge of something and that something must be somewhere.
It must have a locality of its existence and occurrence. Thus

far, the circumstances of our knowledge, time and locality. Now to the

essentials of knowledge. The most exhaustive division of human know-

ledge is between objective and subjective. Objective knowledge is the

knowledge of all that passes without the human body. It is the

knowledge of the phenomena of the external universe. Scientific men

have arrived at the conclusion that natural philosophy, i.e., philosophy
of the material universe; reveals the presence of two things, matter and
 37

force. Matter as matter is not known to us. It is only the play of

forces in matter producing" effects, sensible, that is known to us. Hence

the knowledge of external world is resolved into the knowledge offorce

with its modifications. We come next to subjective knowledge. In

speaking of subjective knowledge, there is firstly the ego, the human

spirit, the conscious entity; secondly, the internal phenomena of which

the human spirit is conscious. The internal phenomena are of two
kinds. They are either the voluntary, intelligent, self-conscious

activities of the mind, which may hence be designated deliberate

activities, or the passive modifications effected in the functions of the

body by the presence of the human spirit. These may therefore be

called the vital activities.

An apriori analysis, therefore, of the knowable leads us to six things,

time, locality, force, human spirit, deliberate activities, and vital

activities. These things, then, are fit to be called devatas. The

conclusion to be derived from the above enumeration is, that, if the

account of Nirukta concerning Vedic devatas, as we have given, be

really true, we should find Vedas inculcating these six things — time,
locality, force, human spirit, deliberate activities and vital activities, as

devatas and no others. Let us apply the crucial test.

We find, however, the mention of 33 devatas in such mantras as

these: —
II. to ^rf^srf m w m^T faftfat i

rn^i (jnrf^sT?*n%^snsjfaTt fa$ > wr X. xxii. 4-27.

Yajur, xiv. 31.

" The Lord of the Ruler of the universe, the Sustainer of all,
all,

holds all things by 33 devatas."

"
The knowers of true theology recognize the 33 devatas performing
their proper organic functions, as existing iu and by Him, the One and

Only."
t$t 5464
 38

Let us, therefore, see what these 33 davatas are, so that we may be
able to compare them with our apriori deductions aud settle the

question.
r
^V e read in Shatapatha Brahmana —

^i7^^ diiftd'srrfafr 11311 3kth *rere ?f?r i ^fag ss€H ^nfgi^rr-

frg th^ws ^N ^trra ^werrfa tir ^(^ tot fti n% ^r-

3irW ^?T ff?T I

^SOT tj^% m^n ^ ^TT^q^ ^^T^Tl^^'e^TT^-

Tf?r i ^T^ar *tt*tt: *m%*i&m ^rTf^snr tot ^vs ^ht^ott 3t>r cwt
f^y OTITIC Ml Tf^rf ffWT^Tf^T sfrT II
$ II 3OTJT T*$: 3kW. H*TT.

xrfHfrf?T i ^*rfa?r t^^t sra: xT^rmfTrfrfa i 3ot*t: ^OTfasr fas

SjfaRfa 3OT*Tt S^ ^fa VWZ TffT II ^ || *acff{7i (5RJT. ^WT Wta TTcf

OTt^t^T tti* ^ W$ %3T Tfa I 3OT*?f ft ^Tfassnsf ^ m^€f?T I

^rnfft *nara tItt ^fr^^f ti*ot n c it

ci^rf : sr^m^i ^ tj^otsw ^qsreHr

^f^T^rf II xiv. 16.*

The meaning of the above is :

—
"Says Yajnavalkya, O Shakalya, there are 33 devaias; & vasus
11 rudras, 12 adit.gds, indra and prdjdpati; 33 on the whole. Th©

eight vasus are 1. heated cosmic bodies, 2. planets, 3. atmospheres,

4. superterrestrial spaces, 5. suns, 6.
rays of ethereal space, 7. satellites,

8. stars. These are called vasus (abodes), for the whole group of exist-
ences resides in them, for they are the abode of all that lives, moves,

or exists. The eleven rudras are the ten nervauric forces enlivening

the human frame, and the eleventh is the human spirit. These are
called the rudras (from root rud to weep), because when they desert the

body, it becomes dead, and the relations of the dead, in consequence of

* Vide Swami Dayanand Saraswati's Veda Bhashya Bhumika, p. 66.
 39

this desertion, begin to weep. The twelve adityas are the twelve

solar months, marking the course of time. .

They are called

adityas as by their cyclic motion they produce changes in all objects,

and hence the lapse of the term of existence for each object. Adityas
means that which causes such a lapse. Indra is the all-pervading

electricity or force. Prajdpati is yajna (or an active voluntary asso-

ciation of objects, on the part of man, for the purposes of art, orasso-

ciation with other men for purposes of teaching or learning) . It also

means the useful animals. Yajna and useful animals are called prajd-

pati, as it is by such actions and by such animals that the world at

materials of sustenance.
"
large derives its What, then, are the three

devatas /"' — Asks Shakalya. Says Yajnavalkya, they are locality, name
and birth. 'What are the two devatas?' — asked he. Yajnavalky,
replied,
'
the positive substances, prdna, and negative substances, anna.

Ad/tyard/iais the universal electricity, the sustainer of the Universe known

as sutrdtmd. Lastly, he inquired,

'
Who is the one Devata ?
'
And
"
Yajnavalkya replied, God, the adorable."

These, then, are the thirty-three devatas mentioned in the Vedas.

Let us see how far this analysis agrees with our a priori deduction. The

eight vasus enumerated in Shatpatha Brahmana are clearly the locali-

ties ; the twelve adityas comprise time; the eleven rudras include,

firstly, the ego, the human spirit, and secondly, the ten nervauric forces
which may be approximately taken for the vital activities of the mind,
electricity is the all-pervading force ;
whereas prajdpati, yajna or

pashus may be roughly regarded as comprising the objects of intelligent

deliberate activities of the mind.

When thus understood, the 33 devatas will correspond with the

six elements of our rough analysis. Since tho object, here, is not so'

much to show exactness of detail as general coincidence, partial

differences may bo left out of account.

It is cleat', then, that the interpretation of devatas which Yaska

gives is the only interpretation that is consistent with the Vedas and
 40

tho Brahnianas. That no doubt may be left concerning the pure

monotheistic worship of the ancient Aryas, we quote from Nirukta

again
—
*nwn*3n!*nTT*n ^ ^nwi w^n ^m*T ^sffwrsm^ ^n:

S*$\ '^TSflrgWnfor =TT "^TT^FTT W$ ^3^1 ^3^1 II

Nirukta vii. 4.
tl
Leaving off all other devatas, it is
only the Supreme Soul that is

worshipped on account of its omnipotence. Other devatas are but the

pratyangas of this Supernal Soul, i.e., they hut partially manifest the
glory of God. All these devatas owe their birth and power to Him.
In Him they have their play. Through Him they exercise their

beneficial influences by attracting properties useful and repelling

properties injurious. He alone is the All in All of all the devatas."

From the above it will be clear that, in so far as worship is con-

cerned, the ancient Aryas adored the Supreme Soul only, regarding
Him as the life, the sustenance and dormitory of the world. And yet

pious Christian missionaries and more pious Christian philologists are

never tired of propagating the lie before the world that the Vedas incul-

cate the worship of many gods and goddesses. Writes a Christian

missionary in India :
—
" Monotheism is a belief in the existence of one God only ; poly-
theism is a belief in the plurality of gods. Max Miiller says,
f
If we
must employ technical terms, the religion of the Veda is polytheism,
not monotheism.' The 27th hymn of the 1st Ashtaka of the Rigveda
'
concludes as follows : Veneration to the great gods, veneration to
the lesser, veneration to the young, veneration to the old ; we wor-
ship the gods as well as we are able :
may I not omit the praise of

the older divinities." *

The pious Christian thus ends his remarks on the religion of the
Vedas. " Pantheism and polytheism are often combined, but mono-
*
John Murdoch: Roligioua Iteform, Part III, Vedic Hinduism.
 41

theism, in the strict sense of the word, is not found in Hinduism/

Again says the pious missionary,

cf
Ram Mohan Roy, as already mention-
ed, despised the hymns of the Yedas, he spoke of the Upanishads as the
Vedas, .and thought that they taught monotheism. The Chhandogya
'
formula, eTcamevadwitiyam brahma,' was also adopted by Keshub
Chander Sen. But it does not mean that there is no second God, but
that there is no second anything —a totally different doctrine." Thus
it is obvious that Christians, well saturated with the truth of God, are

not only anxious to see monotheism off the Vedas, but even off the Upa-
nishats. Well might they regard their position as safe, beyond assail,

on the strength of such translations as these:—*

"In the beginning there arose the Hiranyagarbha {the golden germ.)
•—He was the one born lord of all this. He established the earth and
this sky :
—Who is the God to whom we shall offer our sacrifice V— <

Max Miiller.

" He who gives breath, He who gives whose command all

strength,
the bright gods revere, whose shadow is immortality, whose shadow
is death :
—Who is the God to whom we shall offer our sacrifice V — Ibid.

Hiran} agarbha, which means

r '
God in whom the whole luminoug
'
universe resides in a potential state is translated into the golden germ.

The word jata/i is detached from its proper construction and placed in
" the one born lord o£
apposition vrith. pat ir, thus giving the sense of
all this." Perhaps, there is a deeper meaning in this Christian transla-

tion. Some day, not in the very remote future, these Christians will
' '
discover that the golden germ means conceived by the Holy G//ost y

f '
whereas the one born lord of all alludes to Jesus Christ. In one of

those future happy days, this mantra of the Veda will bo quoted as
an emblematic of a prophecy, in the dark distant past, of the advent
of a Clm'st whom the ancients knew not. How could they, then, adore

him, but in the language of mystic interrogation ? Henco the transla-

"Who is the God to whom we shall offer our sacrifice ?

" Even
tion,

the second mantra, Max Miillcr's translation of which we have subjoined

 lllUi

42

above, lias been differently ranslated by anaudacious Christian.

i What
Max Miillcr translates as " lie who gives breath," was translated by
this believer in the word of God, as
" He who sacrificed Himself, i.e.,

Jesus Christ." The original words in Sanskrit are c

$ ^are f,
'

which mean " he who gives spiritual knowledge."

Let us pass from these mantras and the misinterpretations of
Christians to clear pi*oofs of monotheism in the Vedas. We find in

Rigveda the very mantra which yields the golden germ to European
interpreters. It runs thus —

*r ^ren sfMff ^rrg^ff mot ^rre ^fkm fa$*r »

" God existed in the

beginning of creation, the only Lord of the unborn
universe. He is the Eternal Bliss w horn we should praise and adore."
In Yajur Yeda, xvii. 19, we find—-

c(
Being all vision, all
power, all motion in Himself, He sustains with

His power the whole universe. Himself being One alone. "
And in Atharva Veda, XIII. iv. 16 — 21, we find—
t fo?teft *t ^ftowgsff tt^^
^T rm ^ T£3ft 3%ctf T£=f | ^ ^HsH^ ^cTT ^3T§<ft VT^rT II

(C
There are neither two gods, nor three, nor four, nor ten. He is
one and only one and pervades the whole universe. All other things

live, move and have their existence in Him."

J*

&7 3 5
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
Los Angeles
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.

MAP J.
4 1950

Form L9-10m-3,'48(A7920)444

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
AT
LOS A \lf CM